Global Warming and the Leftist War on Western Industrial Society

Global Warming and the Leftist War on Western Industrial Society

September 17, 2019/13 Comments/in Featured Articles /by Ferdinand Bardamu

 

Graph showing that Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were warmer than today

Part I: The “Global Warming” Scandal

 
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”- Galileo Galilei

 
Climate scientists and environmental activists have distorted the evidence of climate change in the service of a leftist political agenda. The continuous fluctuation in average global temperatures across vast geological timescales are completely ignored in favor of a manipulated data set, one supporting the UN’s drivel about man’s industrial activity being the most significant driver of modern-day climate change. The so-called “consensus” on anthropogenic or Human-Caused Global Warming (AGW) maintains that global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) remained stable for millions of years, but increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to a maximum of 414.7 ppm in 2019. In support of this mainstream “consensus,” researchers write: “[T]he current CO₂ concentration is unprecedented over the past 3 million years …  global temperature never exceeded the preindustrial value by more than 2°C during the Quaternary” (Willeit et al., 2019). Mann et al.’s “hockey stick” (1998) graphically depicts a sharp increase in mean global temperatures from 1850 until present, after centuries of climate stability.
In pre-industrial times, incoming solar radiation would have been reflected off earth’s surface and back into outer space as thermal energy. This changed with the rapid growth in annual fossil fuel consumption since 1900, which has increased atmospheric CO₂, considered a greenhouse or “heat-trapping” gas (GHG). Anthropogenic CO₂, by absorbing thermal energy instead of letting it escape into outer space, has caused mean global temperatures to rise, a process known as the “greenhouse effect.” NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) estimated that “average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.”[1]
Belief in the dangers of AGW has led to the emergence of the new generalist or interdisciplinary field of “climate science,” cobbled together with the express purpose of manufacturing evidence in favor of AGW. Significant differences exist between this climate science and the natural sciences. Regular scientists rely on objective, empirical methods to test hypotheses, not confirmation bias to uphold a neoliberal globalist status quo. Climate researchers, on the other hand, are heavily invested in filtering data through the lens of a single interpretation; they are trained to ignore all hypotheses, with the exception of AGW, no matter how plausible. In the natural sciences, governments will fund competing theories; in climate science, only AGW receives funding because it is the only politically correct explanation. Climate scientists are expected to uncover positive correlations between atmospheric CO₂ and global temperature; if they cannot find one, they will manufacture one out of thin air. Not only is there no money in seeking alternative explanations of climate change, but any attempt at falsifying the AGW hypothesis is considered heresy. A similar state of affairs exists in the field of differential psychology; here, any exploration of race and sex differences in g-factor intelligence is considered taboo, and there is no funding available for such research.
Climate change activists are lionized by the establishment. Former American VP Al Gore conducted a flashy campaign to raise awareness of AGW; in 2007, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). In contrast, those who question the IPCC’s findings are dismissed as cranks challenging a well-established scientific “consensus,” despite significant disagreement among scientists over whether AGW is a real phenomenon or not. Evidence of credible opposition is easily found, even though AGW proponents see these dissidents as shills for “big tobacco” or “big oil.” 
The Heidelberg Appeal, signed in opposition to the UN-backed Earth Summit’s AGW agenda (1992), was endorsed by over 4000 scientists and 70 Nobel Laureates. Opponents were worried about “the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.”[2]
In 1998, over 31,000 scientists and experts signed the Oregon Petition, which urged “the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.” The petition continues:
“The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”[3]

Climate scientists forget that science is not done by consensus, but by hypothesis and experimentation. 
In his Third Letter on Sunspots (1612), Italian physicist Galileo Galilei wrote: “In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” 
The IPCC’s environmental activists believe that deliberate suppression of scientific research challenging the supposed AGW “consensus” is in the best interests of citizens.
Unlike researchers in other disciplines like geology, climate scientists have been known to bully and threaten academics who were skeptical of AGW. They are not above using ad hominem rhetoric or childish name-calling to silence legitimate debate, revealing the intellectual bankruptcy of climate science’s defenders. 
Geologists and other researchers are repeatedly dismissed as “climate deniers,” a favorite term of abuse among environmental activists. It is an odd accusation to hurl at dissenters from mainstream “consensus,” since no scientifically literate person denies that climate always changes.

In 2008, NASA’s James Hansen, whose testimony before US Congress in 1988 began the global warming hysteria, demanded that fossil fuel company CEOs be tried for “crimes against humanity.” Apparently, prosecution for thought-crime is warranted because they refuse to accept mainstream “consensus” on AGW. 
In 2014, the pro-global warming documentary Merchants of Doubt smeared noted American physicist Fred Singer as a “liar.” Singer threatened to sue the film director for libel unless an amicable settlement could be reached out of court.[4] By the early 21^st century, climate science had revealed itself to be just another totalitarian arm of the modern liberal-leftist police state, no different from the Soviet pseudoscience of Lysenkoism, whose manufactured “consensus” was also upheld through repression of dissenting scientists.

In 2009, a server at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was hacked and thousands of emails were leaked. These emails revealed a world seldom seen by the public, where outright fabrication, manipulated data and willful suppression of evidence had replaced scientific objectivity. Free from the glare of public scrutiny, the CRU disregarded scientific method in pursuit of a political agenda.

The emails tell a tale of corruption at the highest levels of academia. A climate scientist who had uncovered a decreasing trend in Northern Hemispheric temperatures was told to “hide the decline” using “Mike’s Nature trick.” Through padding with “instrumental” or thermometer data, the proxy temperature record was adjusted to reflect mainstream “consensus.” Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were routinely evaded and incriminating emails hurriedly deleted. Scientists who disagreed with the CRU were ridiculed and bullied. 
The scandal, known as “Climategate,” revealed a conspiracy among scientists to feed biased information to the IPCC.[5] In the aftermath, the CRU’s top scientists narrowly evaded criminal prosecution because of a legal technicality.[6]

******

Part II: The “Global Warming” House of Cards

When making their case to the public, environmental activists typically “prove” AGW using two pieces of evidence: an imaginary scientific “consensus” and Mann’s “hockey stick.” 
The specific claim of an overwhelming “consensus” on AGW within the scientific community comes from Cook et al. (2013), a team of volunteers affiliated with SkepticalScience.com, a pro-AGW website. The study, which found that 97% of the scientific community endorsed AGW, was one of the most downloaded and frequently cited papers in environmental science. 
Re-analysis of the data revealed significant bias and unrepresentative sample sizes. Cook et al. had excluded 75% of all papers discussing climate change. Geologists have long known about climatic fluctuations across vast geological timescales, but studies from the earth sciences were woefully undersampled. Cook and his team of volunteers were also taken to task for mistaking “a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement” (Tol, 2014). To this day, they have not responded to any of these major criticisms.
In 2017, geographer José Carlos González-Hidalgo, at the University of Zaragoza in Spain, estimated that, to the extent there was any agreement on AGW, there was a 50% “consensus,” as opposed to the 97% that was previously claimed by environmental activists. The supposed AGW “consensus” was only a myth disseminated by UN propaganda.

Mann’s iconic “hockey stick” graph (1998), the centerpiece of the IPCC’s environmental policy, ignited a firestorm of controversy and debate in the early 2000s, thanks to the efforts of Canadian researchers. The original graph reconstructed mean fluctuations in Northern Hemispheric temperature over a span of 600 years; although relatively stable for 500 years, the temperature increased dramatically after 1900. The trend, when depicted graphically, forms a hockey stick, hence the name. The Canadians McIntyre and McKitrick (2003), after re-analyzing Mann’s data, concluded that it was “primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” 
Their re-analysis also uncovered a “Medieval Warming Period”; temperatures were actually higher in the late fifteenth century than in the late twentieth. In 2005, McIntyre and McKitrick criticized the “hockey stick” graph’s underlying statistical methodology:

[P]rior to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs. Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and overstates the first eigenvalue.

Original “hockey stick” graph, 1998. The Y axis shows the Northern hemisphere mean temperature, in degrees Celsius; the zero line corresponds to the 1902 – 1980 mean (Mann et al., 1998).

In layman’s terms, Mann’s algorithm “mined for hockey stick shapes and overstated their dominance in the underlying data patterns; … it understated the uncertainties of the resulting climate reconstruction ” (McKitrick, 2014). The proxy temperature data for the “hockey stick” was based on tree ring analysis of bristlecone and foxtail pines, making the research even more problematic. Paleoclimatic reconstructions using these tree species are not accurate because ring width is influenced by soil conditions, amount of sunlight and rainfall, humidity and availability of CO₂, all of which must be disentangled before the data can be properly interpreted.

Third IPCC report’s version of Mann’s Hockey Stick

Initially, academics were denied access to Mann’s “hockey stick” data. McKitrick (2014) writes:

Mann put obstacles in place for subsequent researchers wanting to obtain his data and replicate his methodologies, most of which were only resolved by the interventions of US Congressional investigators and the editors of Nature magazine, both of whom demanded full release of his data and methodologies some six years after publication of his original Nature paper.

 McIntyre & McKitrick’s corrected version of Mann’s graph (2003). Note that the 15th century is warmer than the 20th.

Updated reconstruction of McIntyre & McKitrick’s corrected version of Mann’s graph (Florides & Christodoulides, 2008)

The bogus hockey stick graph used by Climategate scientists to hide the decline, before and after

There are other problems with the case for AGW. The “greenhouse theory” of AGW is unproven and misleadingly presented. Recreating the earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory setting is physically impossible; the greenhouse effect only occurs within an enclosed structure, not an open system. Comparing the earth’s atmosphere to a greenhouse is thus highly misleading. In Schroeder’s Introduction to Thermal Physics (2000), solar radiation is presented as passing through a transparent atmosphere, which is emitted as thermal infrared energy by the earth’s surface; since the atmosphere is opaque to thermal infrared energy, it is then radiated back to the surface, raising average surface temperatures in the process. “This mechanism,” writes Schroeder, “is called the greenhouse effect … though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling)” (pg, 306).

In other words, climate change activists say that the earth’s atmosphere is like a greenhouse, but in an actual physical structure like a greenhouse, solar energy passes through the glass, heating surfaces within. It is then emitted by these surfaces as thermal infrared energy, but this cannot escape because of the glass. The glass traps the energy inside, inhibiting convective heat loss. This raises the temperature of the greenhouse. The heating of the earth is not like a greenhouse for two reasons: a) thermal energy is still able to escape from earth’s atmosphere and, b) heating occurs because the atmosphere is partially opaque to earth’s re-radiated thermal (infrared) energy, not by inhibiting convection (heat transfer by air or liquid).

A planetary greenhouse effect is an unfalsiable hypothesis because an actual greenhouse is a closed system (i.e. traps thermal energy) whereas the earth’s atmosphere is an open system (i.e. allows thermal energy to escape). You cannot recreate an open system like the earth’s atmosphere in a laboratory.

We have seen that AGW is based on fabricated or manipulated data; unbeknownst to the public, the AGW hypothesis is contradicted by a large body of experimental evidence. Contrary to the IPCC, CO₂ can only absorb so much thermal energy radiated by earth’s surface until reaching a saturation point (Archibald, 2007). Once it has been reached, CO₂’s ability to absorb thermal energy decreases logarithmically. A doubling or even tripling of atmospheric CO₂ does not lead to rapid average global temperature increases. This explains why past geological eras, i.e. the Paleozoic, had 2 to 15 times the amount of atmospheric CO₂ we have now (which is 414.7 ppm), but did not experience a runaway greenhouse effect. When dinosaurs first appeared during the Triassic, CO₂ already exceeded 1000 ppm.[7]

Unlike a real greenhouse that restricts heat escape by preventing convection, the earth is heated by “greenhouse gases”
that absorb outgoing thermal energy, re-emitting some of it back towards Earth

There have been periods that were significantly warmer than the present, such as the Holocene Climatic Optimum and the Medieval Warming Period. 

Temperatures over 6000 years ago were 3ºC higher than they are now. This is confirmed by paleoclimatic reconstructions of Canadian Arctic and Russian temperatures (Fortin and Gajewski, 2016). Those who push Green dogma face a conundrum: How can AGW be true if the late Middle Ages and the Holocene were much warmer than the present?

Embarrassingly enough for the “Church of Climate Change,” Fyfe et al. (2016) found that there was a “global warming slowdown” from 2000 to 2014, despite increasing anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Some argue that the decreasing C₁₃ / C₁₂ isotope ratio of atmospheric CO₂ is an anthropogenic signal, but another study found that these trends actually mirror natural C₁₃ / C₁₂ variability during interannual fluctuations of sea surface temperatures (Spencer, 2012, pg. 130).

That CO₂ causes global temperatures to rise is axiomatic among climate change activists. But how well supported is this belief? Pedro et al. (2012) reported that, during deglaciation, rising Antarctic temperatures preceded increases in CO₂. Using Antarctic and Greenlandic ice cores, they were able to show that atmospheric CO₂  has lagged temperature since the Late Paleolithic. Rising CO₂ is attributed to unspecified biogeochemical processes occurring in the ocean, further implicating temperature as the variable modulating CO₂ variation, rather than vice versa.

There is some indication that if CO₂ increases, temperature will actually either increase less rapidly or even decrease, indicating a negative correlation. Changes in temperature and CO₂ variation occur on ocean and land surfaces first, before affecting the lower troposphere. Further, global changes in atmospheric CO₂ concentration  are non-anthropogenic, since they occur near the equator before spreading to the poles, not in the industrialized North as expected if AGW was true (Humlum et al., 2013). Not only that, other data reveal no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and concentration of atmospheric CO₂ (Munshi 2017). Investigators have tentatively hypothesized why CO₂ lags temperature: the solubility of CO₂ in the ocean waters decrease as temperatures rise, leading to “net outgassing” of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

 CO2 lags temperature, not vice versa, as would be expected if AGW was correct ( Humlum et al., 2013)

Climate physicist Edwin X. Berry (2019) dismantles the IPCC’s “Bern model,” which supposedly explains atmospheric accumulation of anthropogenic CO₂. The IPCC believes that increasing anthropogenic CO₂ reduces ocean buffer capacity; if the ocean can’t absorb excess CO₂, it remains trapped in the atmosphere with nowhere to go. If this were true, concentration of atmospheric CO₂ would be many times higher than it is now, given significant average temperature and CO₂ variation across vast geological timescales. 
The IPCC apparently believes that anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic CO₂ have the same molecular formulas but different molecular structures, a preposterous assumption that violates the laws of both chemistry and physics.
If a model is to retain its validity, it must supply us with an explanation that best fits the data. Berry’s simple mathematical model, which “shows how CO₂ flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow,” is empirically supported by C₁₄ data. 
After nuclear testing during the 1950s and 60s, there was a temporary accumulation of C₁₄ in the atmosphere, which eventually dissipated after 1970. In order for the Bern model to be correct, man-made CO₂ would have remained trapped in the atmosphere. The C₁₄ data shows this to be false, forcing us to conclude that Berry’s “physics model” best fits the data.
The IPCC maintains that, because anthropogenic CO2 increased faster than naturally occurring CO₂ after 1750, growth in atmospheric CO₂ between 1750 to 2013 has been entirely anthropogenic. As the study author points out, this is a non sequitur:

[T]he fact that the sum of human emissions is greater than the increase does not prove human CO₂ caused the increase. The IPCC argument omits natural CO₂ which totaled about 6000 ppm during the same period, much larger than the sum of human CO₂.

The IPCC’s contention that non-anthropogenic CO₂ does not increase total atmospheric CO₂ because nature is a sink is patently ridiculous:

Of course, nature is a ‘net carbon sink’ because nature absorbs human CO₂ emissions. However, absorption of human CO₂ has no bearing whatsoever on how much natural CO₂ flows into the atmosphere. Nature can set its inflow as it pleases, no matter how much human inflow nature absorbs.

There is no “climate control knob,” as the IPCC and its globalist lackeys like to believe. We have as much control over the climate as King Canute of England had over the tides of the river Thames. AGW is a pious fraud, one based on spurious correlation and post hoc ergo propter hoc. But if temperature decreases CO₂ solubility in ocean waters, as evidence suggests, what leads to rising average global temperatures?
 
There is evidence that climate change is modulated by variability of solar magnetic flux, although the precise mechanism is still debated by physicists. 
The most common theory is that sunspot activity and cosmic ray intensity are inversely correlated. During low sunspot activity, expansion of the sun’s corona produces faster and stronger solar winds, shielding the heliosphere from interstellar cosmic radiation needed for cosmogenic ionization of aerosols. Without enough of these charged particles, there are less cloud condensation nuclei (CNNs) available as “surface” area for water vapor condensation. In the absence of cloud cover, incoming solar radiation will not be reflected back into outer space, raising average global temperatures (Svensmark, 2019). 
This is far more convincing than AGW, in addition to being supported by actual experimental evidence.

Changes in sunspot activity caused climatic changes in the past (i.e. the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age)

Illustration of Svensmark’s theory, explaining how solar activity causes climate change (2019)

The question remains to be asked: If AGW is so obviously wrong, why do the IPCC and their globalist lackeys continue to promote this falsehood as if it were actually true?

---

[1]“World of Change: Global Temperatures.” Nasa.Gov, NASA Earth Observatory, 9 Dec. 2010, earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp. ‌
[2]Goldstein, Leo. “Heidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ Scientists, 70 Nobel Laureates.” Science Defies Politics, 26 Sept. 2018, defyccc.com/heidelberg-appeal-anniversary/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019. ‌
[3]—. “Oregon Petition (1998) Signed by 31,000+ Scientists and Experts.” Science Defies Politics, 9 June 2019, defyccc.com/oregon-petition/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019. ‌
[4]Morano, Marc. “Merchants of ‘Smear’ Movie Slanders Eminent Physicist Dr. Fred Singer – Singer Fires Back!” Climate Depot, 6 Mar. 2015, www.climatedepot.com/2015/03/06/merchants-of-smear-movie-slanders-eminent-physicist-dr-fred-singer-singer-fires-back/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019. ‌
[5]For further information, see The Climategate Emails, edited and annotated by John Costella (2010). ‌
[6]Derbyshire, David. “New Scandal as ‘Climate Gate’ Scientists Accused of Hiding Data from Global Warming Sceptics.” Mail Online, Daily Mail, 28 Jan. 2010, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019. ‌
[7]“File:Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide.Png – Wikimedia Commons.” Wikimedia.Org, 2009, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019. ‌
===============

PART III: “Global Warming”: Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Western and Anti-White?

How anthropogenic CO₂ can be a pollutant but non-anthropogenic CO₂ not, even though both have the same molecular formulas and structure, is a mystery that not even the intellectual luminaries of the IPCC can explain. Of course, the evidence says otherwise; rising CO₂, whether anthropogenic or not, has allowed modern farmers to increase crop yields simply because of its greater availability in earth’s atmosphere. Despite these obvious errors, the “Church of Climate Change” continues to demand that White Western nations – and only White Western nations – impose restrictions on industrial emissions of CO₂ through carbon taxes and cap-and-trade policies. 
White Western nations are encouraged by environmentalists to squander trillions on unreliable “green” technologies and renewable sources of energy, yet environmentalists have consistently ignored one policy that has significantly increased global atmospheric CO₂ in recent years, generating hundreds of millions of metric tons of the stuff annually: mass Third World immigration.
+
Environmentalists have long believed in the IPAT formula (I = P × A × T). Ecological sustainability is affected by Population × Affluence (per capita consumption) × Technology (environmental impact per unit consumption). 
In Paul Ehrlich’s original formulation (1968), the impact of population and the other two variables is not independent and additive, but interdependent and multiplicative; in other words, the variables increase or decrease in tandem with each other. If this equation is valid, as Ehrlich and his supporters believe, increasing population pressure on natural resources will accelerate environmental degradation. If impact is understood in terms of AGW, increasing consumption per capita will lead to higher industrial emissions of atmospheric CO₂. If IPCC officials were objective, they would demand significant reductions in mass immigration instead of more carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETSs). In 2008, Kolankiewicz and Camarota presented empirical evidence that mass immigration was tied to rising CO₂ emissions. For the United States, the authors conclude:

Immigrants in the United States produce about four times more CO₂  in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. The estimated 637 metric tons of CO₂ U.S. immigrants produce is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries. This 482 million ton increase represents about 5 percent of the increase in annual world-wide CO₂ emissions since 1980. … If immigrants in the United States were their own country, they would rankseventh in the world in annual CO₂ output, ahead of such countries as Canada, France, and Great Britain.

Although recent “increases in U.S. CO₂ emissions have been driven entirely by population increases as per capita emissions have stabilized,” climate alarmists continue to overlook mass immigration, a significant driver of CO₂ emissions in the industrialized West. Such obliviousness in the face of the evidence indicates that modern environmentalism was never about “saving the planet.” Environmentalists are just as committed to the racial dispossession of whites in their own countries as any other group of leftists, otherwise they would all be concerned anti-immigration activists.

 So what is the ulterior motive?

So what is the ulterior motive? To further understand what this may be, we turn to the career of Canadian businessman Maurice Strong (1929-2015), founder of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UN’s current role as chief propagandist of AGW is not a random historical accident; instead, Strong’s tireless “lobbying behind the scenes” allowed the UN “to play … a central shaping role” in the ideology of AGW, making it one of the dominant leftist orthodoxies embraced by most Western governments.

In a sense, he was the right man at the right moment in time. Besides Strong’s machinations behind closed doors, he was aided by other factors, such as the collapse of Soviet communism in the early 1990s, creating a vacuum that helped pave the way for the emergence and eventual dominance of a new ideological force in the industrialized West: environmentalism. As a form of secularized Christianity with an apocalyptic vision of the future, environmentalism was uniquely situated to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Marxist ideology:

“The environmentalist narrative had much in common with the Marxist version it for so many people replaced. It divided the world into the exploiters and the exploited. It identified many of the same ‘enemies’, the power of America and of multi-national corporations, particularly those involved in oil and energy. It saw the rich nations of the world, led by the US, living at the expense of the poor. And above all it provided for its adherents the heady sense of being caught up in a great idealistic cause, aimed no longer just at freeing the world from the evils of capitalism but at something more cosmic altogether, saving nothing less than the entire planet from the greed and selfishness of humanity” (Booker 2013, pg. 339).

Strong was an ardent believer in the efficacy of state redistributive policies. In 1976, Strong told Maclean’s magazine: “I am a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” Christopher Booker (2013) goes into some detail about Strong’s personal philosophy:

“Many of the problems of mankind, he believed, lay with the selfish materialism of the rich Western countries, which laid such a heavy burden on the poorer nations of the under-developed world. This was posing an ‘acute moral, economic and political dilemma to the whole global community.’ And one notable expression of this, he had been advised by scientists, was that ‘we may already be in the beginning stages of a major shift in the dynamics of the earth’s climate system.’”

Strong’s environmentalism was more pragmatic, than ideological. His main purpose was to use environmentalism to advance his vision of global governance under the aegis of the UN. 
In a 1992 essay, he wrote: “It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Strong’s environmental pragmatism is confirmed by Booker (2013, pg. 311):

Maurice Strong’s primary interest was not in the ‘environment’ as such. The real driving force of his life (apart from making money) was his 30-year-old dream that the UN might be a stepping stone to full world government. And now, through his association with the apocalyptically minded Club of Rome, he had come to see ‘environmentalism’, transcending national boundaries, as the most powerful instrument whereby his own great ambition might be brought about. His setting up in 1972 of the UN Environment Program, with its own international commissariat, able to command funding from national governments, was a step towards realising his dream.

Even though Strong had retired from the UNEP in 1976, he continued to play a significant role on the world stage as a militant environmentalist. He was a member of the The World Commission on Environment and Development, or the Brundtland Commission, established by the UN General Assembly in 1983. Although chaired by then Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Brundtland, Strong was its most influential and active member. The Brundtland Commission Report was finally published in 1987. Strong played a key role in developing the report’s concept of “sustainable development,” a term of crucial significance to the IPCC’s use of climate “adaptation and mitigation” as a vehicle for the promotion of egalitarian principles. This was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

• the concept of ‘needs,’ in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given;
• and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs” (pg. 41).

Sustainable development was a call for social and economic egalitarianism, nestled within a simple Marxist dialectical framework. The antagonism between Marx’s capitalist and proletariat mirrored the antagonism between industrialized and developing nations. The First World is the primary culprit behind Third World underdevelopment. Its need for raw materials had forced developing countries to over-exploit and deplete natural resources, leading to more environmental degradation and underdevelopment. 
 The Brundtland Commission saw this as a vicious circle; environmental degradation is both cause and effect of poverty. The poor are disproportionately more affected than the rich because of global disparities in wealth and power. 
For example, the wealthier nations, because of their superior infrastructure and technological base, are better able to shield themselves from the effects of air pollution. This is why the authors conclude that “inequality is the planet’s main ‘environmental’ problem; it is also its main ‘development’ problem.” The solution, in a nutshell, boils down to more money to the developing world from rich Western nations.
Strong’s participation in the Brundtland Commission would ensure that man-made climate change and socialist redistribution would be incorporated into the report. 
These would subsequently form the basis of the UN’s environmental policy, becoming so influential that Western governments would try to reverse the effects of the Industrial Revolution in their own countries, limiting their capacity for scientific and technological development through restrictions on CO₂ emissions and increasing dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies. Climate hysteria and the UN’s insistence on implementation of socialistic policy on a global scale would persist well into the 21^st century and possibly beyond.
 
In 1988, Strong had convinced the UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to agree to the formation of an “intergovernmental mechanism” to monitor AGW and suggest policy recommendations for the UN and Western governments. This organization was the IPCC. Booker (2013, pg. 339) writes:

Maurice Strong used his influence to harness this new ‘environmentalist’ mood of the time to his lifelong dream that the United Nations should move forward towards becoming a ‘world government’. The answer to all these threats crowding in on the planet, he argued, lay in the creation of new UN structures to tackle them.” The purpose of new structures like the UNEP and the IPCC “was not just to enhance the UN’s global role by identifying it with humanity’s response to environmental challenges, but also to further his socialist ideals by redistributing wealth from the rich nations of the West to the underdeveloped world.

Billions of dollars have been siphoned off from Western taxpayers and transferred to Third World countries, ostensibly to aid in climate “mitigation and adaptation” within the “context of sustainable development.” 

AGW was merely a pretense for socialist redistribution on a global scale. To this day, the IPCC supports the redistribution of wealth from the developed to developing countries. In 2010, the Green Climate Fund was established, with the ostensible purpose of climate “adaptation and mitigation” in the Third World. 
This would, of course, necessitate the redistribution of wealth from the rich countries to the Global South. Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund in 2014, with $1 billion already handed over by 2017. However, not all Western politicians subscribed to the false humanitarianism of the UN’s avowedly socialist redistributive aims. Trump, who had promised during his election campaign to withdraw from the Paris agreement, did so on June 1, 2017. In his withdrawal speech, he said:

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund … which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.[1]

Socialist redistribution followed necessarily from Strong’s hostility to Western industrial society, which had (in his view) impoverished and underdeveloped the Third World. “If we don’t change, our species will not survive […],” Strong said in a 1997 interview. “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
In 1990, he is reported to have said:

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? … In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

Why else have so many globalists backed the the outsourcing of the West’s manufacturing base to the developing world? 
The West’s transition from an industrial to an information-based service economy is a deliberate plot to de-industrialize the West in the name of socialist redistribution.
 
Maurice Strong believed that only the destruction of Western civilization would save man from ecological catastrophe. In the Brundtland Report, co-authored by Strong, the developing nations are not to be brought up to the same level of industrialization as the West; instead, Western governments were advised to pursue less energy- and capital-intensive productive activities, all in the name of sustainable development. 
The result, of course, is the managed de-industrialization of the Western nations, with the aim of placing them on a more equal footing with the developing world. If social inequality and environmental degradation were the result of industrialization, then de-industrialization would return the West to the way it was before the Industrial Revolution. 
This, of course, was the clandestine purpose of the IPCC.
Strong’s wish to dismantle industrial civilization is not only anti-capitalist and anti-Western, but anti-White. 
The overwhelming majority of industrialized nations are White nations, apart from Japan and South Korea. The underlying anti-White hostility of Green dogma should be obvious. As of 2019, China is responsible for over one-quarter of all global CO₂ emissions, making it the world’s biggest polluter,[2] yet the burden of reducing CO₂ is entirely shouldered by the Western industrialized nations. This burden includes the payment of carbon taxes, implementation of cap and trade policies, development of green technologies and renewable sources of energy, all entirely White, Western endeavors. This is, of course, what Strong and his supporters have always wanted, since the founding of the UNEP in 1972.

Not only is the environmental movement anti-capitalist, but as Klaus (2008, pg. 4) explains, it is profoundly misanthropic and life-denying:
 
“If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology. It sees the fundamental cause of the world’s problems in the very expansion of homo sapiens. Humans have surpassed the original scope of nature through the development of their intellect and their ability to reshape nature and make use of it. Not coincidentally, many environmentalists refuse to place human beings at the center of their attention and thinking.”

Environmental ideology demands the end of progress to save the planet. If Western nations have always been at the forefront of scientific and technological progress, it makes no sense to economically cripple them to achieve parity with the developing world. Research and development are necessarily energy- and capital-intensive; if fossil fuel consumption is drastically reduced by limiting CO₂ emissions and encouraging dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies, how would man ever progress, scientifically and technologically, as a species? 

Environmentalism practiced on a large scale will simply lead to the abolition of Western civilization. By regarding humans as neither above nor a part of nature, but subordinate to it, environmentalists believe that the natural world has greater moral worth than humans. If taken to its logical conclusion, mass extinction of the human species is the best possible outcome for the planet.
At its core, environmentalism is a nihilist belief-system that rejects humanity in favor of nature. 
This makes environmentalism a dangerous, fanatical ideology, much like Soviet Communism. 
What environmentalists fail to understand is that man belongs to nature, but also transcends it because of his capacity to reason. This has freed him, albeit partially, from the tyranny of his own instincts. Insofar as man is an integral part of nature, the human impact on the environment is no different from the impact of any other endogenous process. In nature, the response to endogenous factors is adaptation and divergence, not optimal or steady-state equilibrium. 
This is why environmentalist aims are naively utopian. 
If vast geological timescales reveal enormous fluctuations in mean temperatures, sea levels, atmospheric CO₂, tectonic plate activity etc. then believing that one can turn the “climate knob” back to some ideal climate through “sustainable development” is a laughable pipe dream.
In many respects, environmentalists are the new Marxists, with the same shared goal of creating an ideal world. In the words of former Czech President Václav Klaus ( 2008, pg. 5):

The environmentalists’ attitude toward nature is analogous to the Marxist approach to economics. The aim in both cases is to replace the free, spontaneous evolution of the world (and humankind) by the would-be optimal, central, or—using today’s fashionable adjective— global planning of world development. Much as in the case of Communism, this approach is utopian and would lead to results completely different from the intended ones. Like other utopias, this one can never materialize, and efforts to make it materialize can only be carried out through restrictions of freedom, through the dictates of a small, elitist minority over the overwhelming majority.

In practice, leftists have no interest in the environment; if they did they would be neo-Malthusians advocating lower population growth in places like Africa and the Middle East. 

Instead, only Western nations shoulder the entire burden of “fixing” AGW. China and India are the world’s biggest polluters, but continue to emit GHGs into the atmosphere with scarcely a word of criticism from either environmentalists or the IPCC. 
 As an ideology, environmentalism is little more than black-and-white moralizing within a Marxist framework. It’s basic message is a simple one: West, bad; Third World, good. Such are the Orwellian beliefs of those who would enslave the West to save the planet.

Part IV: The Myth of Resource Scarcity and the Threat of Environmentalism

Climate change is the greatest non-issue of the twentieth century. The only purpose of AGW was to manipulate the masses into gradually abandoning Western industrial society by fanning mass hysteria to fever pitch; once this was done, getting the politicians and the electorate to be on board with curtailing Western scientific and technological development would be a cakewalk. 
Making false predictions about resource depletion was one way of accomplishing this.
Ever since the first Earth Day, environmentalists have been predicting the disappearance of vital natural resources in the near future. In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist, famously predicted that declining oil production would lead to a global economic meltdown by the year 2000. 
His prediction was based on the work of American geologist M. King Hubbert who, in 1956, predicted that crude oil production in the US would peak around 1970 using a bell-shaped or Hubbert curve. After 2000, the world would be running out of oil. Hubbert’s prediction, known as Peak Oil, was only partially accurate. Where the theory errs is on the decline side of the Hubbert curve. The decline only applies to conventional sources of oil, whereas unconventional sources are vastly underestimated. If recovery of unconventional oil is costly, at least initially, then prices will go down as more capital investment in extractive technologies leads to more improvements in terms of efficiency.
The failure of Peak Oil, like all of the failed predictions made by environmentalists since the 1970s, teaches us that resource scarcity is a myth. Man will always adapt himself to his surroundings. The more challenging the surroundings, the greater man’s capacity for discovery and invention. 

It would be Western Europeans, exposed to the most challenging environment of them all, the frigid circumpolar North, who would exhibit the highest degree of creativity and intelligence. After the long night of the Christian Dark Ages, Western man would progress to such an extent that he would eventually fashion the world in his image. 
Environmentalists are too pessimistic; the greatest resources of all are the geniuses who have shaped the course of Western civilization – and will continue to do so –  since the time of Plato and Aristotle.

We see limited resources, but in reality, the list of potential resources is infinite; all that is lacking are men with the IQ, creativity and technological know-how to visualize the endless possibilities for resources and resource extraction in a world that is, for the most creative individuals, infinite and without boundaries. 

Environmentalism and other totalitarian ideologies threaten to put an end to this Faustian character of the West by suppressing all deviation from the orthodoxy of political correctness.  
By limiting the sphere of discourse within the range of what is publicly acceptable, environmentalists create an atmosphere of intimidation where they can quietly indulge their anti-Western hatred without risk of public scrutiny. By sabotaging the West’s engine of economic growth, either by limiting industrial activity through carbon restrictions or by exporting the manufacturing base to developing countries, they will have “saved the planet.” 
If they are to be stopped before it is too late to reverse the damage already done to the West’s economic infrastructure, there must be a thriving marketplace of ideas; without it, the Western mind will forever remain imprisoned in the “green shackles” of  environmentalism.

Part V: Beyond Environmentalism? Laissez-Faire, Stewardship of Nature and Ethnic Nationalism

A possible to solution to the problems caused by modern environmentalism is a return to the more sensible conservationism of the past. Teddy Roosevelt was among the early twentieth-century’s most prominent conservationists; through executive order, he established dozens of national parks, forest reserves and wildlife refuges across the US. His philosophy of conservation was simple:

There is a delight in the hardy life of the open. There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy and its charm. The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.

Man was superior to nature, but he was also its steward. With stewardship came certain moral responsibilities. He was obligated to the next generation to leave the environment better than when he had found it.
What is the best way to enforce man’s stewardship of nature? Klaus (2008, pg. 29) says:

In 1991, Gene M. Grossman and Alan B. Krueger noticed that an upside-down U-shaped relationship exists between the quality of the environment and the level of income, that is, wealth. After analyzing data from 42 countries, they calculated that the critical point occurs when the annual GDP reaches something between $6,700 and $8,400 per capita. […] Applying this to the real economy, a remarkable conclusion follows: Economic growth—an increase in wealth—is ultimately beneficial to the environment.”

Whites create better and more sanitary environments than non-Whites because only Whites create societies conducive to high rates of economic growth. Compared to the vast majority of societies, in the West, towns and cities are cleaner, the air and water are less polluted, and there is even less congestion and overcrowding. Most importantly, large sections of the natural environment have been left untouched, reserved for the enjoyment of future generations. If industrialization was as bad as environmentalists say it is, this would not be the case. Western industrial societies would be just as filthy as any in the developing world. Yet the exact opposite is true; ecological sustainability is a beneficial side effect of increasing industrialization. Once a certain level of average GDP per capita is reached, people suddenly have more leisure to develop an ecological awareness of their surroundings.

The correlation between economic growth and quality of environment is not complete without a discussion of racial factors. Whites have produced virtually all of the world’s greatest creative geniuses; this has made Western civilization the wealthiest and most powerful that has ever existed. The fact that these societies were racially homogeneous until recently meant that people were willing to care for each other, allowing them to hand over the environment “to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.” For example, when society is racially homogeneous, there tends to be greater redistribution of wealth than in more heterogeneous societies. Alesina et al. (2019) write:

[W]e find that native respondents display lower support for redistribution when the share of immigrants in their residence region is higher. This negative association is driven by regions of countries with relatively large Welfare States and by respondents at the center or at the right of the political spectrum. The effects are also stronger when immigrants originate from Middle-Eastern countries, are less skilled than natives, and experience more residential segregation.

In racially homogeneous White societies, people are more likely to trust and care for each another; but as White societies become more heterogeneous, this mutual trust disappears; as these societies fracture along racial lines, people become more isolated from each other and “hunker down” (Putnam, 2007). If people are more likely to care for each other in a White homogeneous society, they will be more likely to leave the environment better than when they found it for future generations.

Conserving natural resources for future generations will not be achieved by subordinating national interests to economic interests under the neoliberal system of world governance envisioned by the UN. If high IQ, White racial belonging and ability to create wealth are all positively associated with efficient natural resource management, then the best environmental policy is to encourage more industrial economic activity — more factories, more smokestacks, more burning of fossil fuels and more R & D, in White racially conscious societies. Government policy will not preserve nature for us, but more ethnonationalism will, especially in all-white societies.

Promotion of nationalism as part of an ideal environmental policy is incomplete without a neo-Malthusian world-view. Low-quality stock should be discouraged from breeding; at the same time, every effort should be made to encourage the reproduction of high-quality individuals. The same principle should be consistently applied on an international level. 
Societies that are most destructive toward the environment, with fertility rates and surplus population far in excess of the land’s carrying capacity, must be allowed to quietly vanish. 
Foreign aid must be acknowledged as a failure; the time has now come for pursuit of more active eugenic measures.

---

References:
Alesina, Alberto, et al. “Immigration and Preferences for Redistribution in Europe.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, 14 Feb. 2019, www.nber.org/papers/w25562.
‌Berry, Edwin X. “Human CO₂ Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO₂.” International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019, pp. 13–26, 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.
‌Booker, Christopher. The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with “Climate Change” Turning out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? Bloomsbury Continuum, 2013.
Fortin, Marie-Claude, and Gajewski, Konrad. “Multiproxy Paleoecological Evidence of Holocene Climatic Changes on the Boothia Peninsula, Canadian Arctic.” Quaternary Research, vol. 85, no. 3, May 2016, pp. 347–357, 10.1016/j.yqres.2016.02.003. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.
‌Fyfe, John C., et al. “Making Sense of the Early-2000s Warming Slowdown.” Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, no. 3, 24 Feb. 2016, pp. 224–228, courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas570/warming_slowdown.pdf, 10.1038/nclimate2938. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.
González-Hidalgo, J.C. “El Consenso Sobre El Origen Humano Del Cambio Del Clima No Ha Sido Demostrado Aún.” Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica, vol. 44, no. 1, 20 Feb. 2018, p. 349, 10.18172/cig.3368. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.
[1]Trump, Donald. Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. The White House, 2017, www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/. ‌
[2]Thomas, C. “These Countries Produce the Most CO₂ Emissions.” USA TODAY, 14 July 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/14/china-us-countries-that-produce-the-most-co-2-emissions/39548763/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019. ‌
========================